4 12. According to the law in force in Barbados (or, more broadly, the norms of Barbados, in order to include the provisions of formal statutes, practice, and jurisprudence, under the framework of the common law), the death penalty is not applicable in the case of individuals who have committed offenses sanctioned with this punishment but who, at the time they committed them, suffered from mental health problems or other situations (alcohol or drug addiction) with which this normative associates the same juridical consequence. Thus, there are hypotheses for excluding the death penalty which, logically, constitute presumptions to be considered when conducting proceedings and delivering the judgment. The presence or absence of these exclusions influences the alternative that looms over the individual: life or death, as stated in the Court’s judgment. 13. It is not merely a question of the ability of the individual to undergo the trial lucidly, or of his competence to take part in the oral proceedings and understand the charges against him. Although this is significant, it is not everything. It is a question of the pertinence or irrelevance of undertaking proceedings and formulating claims – both the State’s responsibility – that will lead to the death penalty or, in contrast, undertaking proceedings which have consequences that do not entail this very serious punishment. In this regard, one can speak of the relevance of the definition adopted as a basis for the State’s punitive action. 14. In these circumstances, it seems evident that the State should take into account the regime of international human rights law on the trying of individuals that may be sentenced to capital punishment. It is clear that very demanding standards exist in this regard, as can be seen from the 1984 United Nations Safeguards, which require the most complete defense of the accused – points 4 and 5 – and as can be seen from Article 4 of the American Convention. Criminal proceedings should be particularly careful about guaranteeing rights, and the State’s criminal action should proceed in the same direction – and in the same spirit – through the different public agents who intervene in these matters: the police, prosecutors, courts, among others. No State body can exempt itself from these essential requirements. 15. The tribunal is charged with guaranteeing the human rights of the accused, and this responsibility may not be evaded. Thus, the tribunal’s first concern in a case such as that before the Court should be the precise verification that the conditions on which the trial was based were satisfied; in other words, that the factors necessary for the initiation of a trial that would culminate in the death penalty really existed. This required the tribunal to verify that it had reasonably exhausted, if applicable, the possibility of the exclusion of the death penalty due to the mental health of the accused at the time that the crime was committed, and not merely at the time of the trial. 16. In view of the judge’s function as guarantor, and of the very high procedural standards in the application of the death penalty, the judge could not depend, nor should he have depended, on the diligence and professional expertise of the defense counsel – also a State official – but should have himself verified that possibility, ordering an appropriate